Our People

Mark Meyerhoff

Partner, Los Angeles

Mark represents clients in all types of civil litigation, administrative proceedings and arbitrations.  Mark regularly advises and represents clients in all aspects of employment and traditional labor relations matters.

Mark utilizes his employment law and litigation experience and expertise for the benefit of our firm's clients in such matters as discipline and termination arbitrations and hearings; state and federal court actions involving harassment, civil rights, discrimination, writs of mandate relating to meet and confer disputes, Public Safety Officer Procedural Bill of Rights issues, administrative charges of harassment and discrimination brought before the DFEH and EEOC and several court of appeal arguments.

Notably, Mark has successfully tried a federal court case involving civil rights and retaliation claims.  Mark has also worked on two matters which resulted in two published decisions, including a recent decision in which the California Supreme Court elaborated upon the scope of meet and confer obligations for public sector entities.  Mark has also successfully litigated numerous other administrative and court proceedings on behalf of the firm's clients.

In addition to his litigation expertise, Mark continuously counsels clients on a variety of labor relations matters, including major labor disputes and strikes, unfair labor practice charges, bargaining unit disputes, collective bargaining agreement interpretations and union organizing issues.  Mark also develops and updates personnel rules, policies and ordinances for public sector clients and routinely presents training programs and workshops for supervisors and managers.

Prior to joining Liebert Cassidy Whitmore in 2001, Mark represented employers in labor and employment law for a national employment law firm.  Mark litigated several cases in both state and federal court, including claims for wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, labor relations, wage and hour issues, privacy and trade secret disputes.

Representative Matters

Appellate

  • Lewitt v.Lavin (2009) - In an unpublished opinion, the California Court of Appeal, Second District agreed with the Sixth District's Gilbert v. City of Sunnyvale ruling, holding that an interrogated officer's discovery rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act are limited to the investigation reports and complaints only, and only after the officer has been interrogated and further proceedings are contemplated or prior to a further interrogation.

Litigation

  • Summary Judgement Win On USERRA Claim (2011) - Represented the City on a discrimination suit. Plaintiff alleged the City discriminated against him by violating the federal military leave law, USERRA. Summary judgment granted in favor of City.  Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment denied. The court correctly determined that USERRA does not entitle an employee while on leave to automatically receive promotions or pay increases which are generally based on merit.  The court distinguished job advancement based solely on seniority as opposed to merit.  With pure seniority the employee receives promotion and pay increases "automatically" while on leave.
  • Batts et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. (2010) - LCW successfully defended the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief William Bratton, and other high-level Police Department command staff in a retaliation action brought by nine police department sergeants who alleged they had suffered adverse emplyoment actions because of their participation in a wage and hour litigation against the City.  The alleged adverse actions included disciplinary investigations, relief from duty, suspension, transfer, and denial of promotion.  Plaintiffs attempted to bring the matter as a class action, but the Court dismissed the class allegations. Following depositions of each Plaintiff, of Chief Bratton, and some individual defendants, LCW brought nine summary judgment motions, one for each Plaintiff.  The Court granted all the motions, resulting in a defense victory on all claims.
  • Justin Tackett v. County of Imperial (2007) - Summary judgment was awarded in this lawsuit brought by a Sheriff Deputy claiming retaliation and race discrimination.
  • Ho v. City of Azusa (2007) - Obtained a summary judgment on behalf of the city in this case brought by the union president alleging first amendment retaliation.
  • Bohacik v. City of Hermosa Beach (2006) - Obtained summary judgment in favor of the City in this Public Safety Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights Act case involving internal affairs investigation.
  • Lewitt v. City of Hermosa Beach (2006) - Successful in obtaining a summary judgment in this law enforcement investigation case.
  • Claremont Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Claremont (2006) - In a case handled by LCW at the superior court level, the Supreme Court adopts the lower court ruling by determining that a Police Department's implementation of racial profiling study is not submect to meet and confer requirements.
  • Ware v. City of Pasadena and Chief Bernard Melekian (2004) - Wrongful termination and Freedom of Speech case in a Federal Court jury trial. We won a defense verdict on the wrongful termination claim and, based on the juror's answers to proposed questions, the Judge held that the balance was in favor of the City on the freedom of speech claim. The Judge granted a motion for judgment as a matter of law on all of the claims on behalf of the Defendants.

Publications

Presentations

Education

  • JD, Loyola Marymount University School of Law
  • BA, University of California, Santa Barbara
To Contact Liebert Cassidy Whitmore:
Los Angeles 310.981.2000 | Fresno 559.256.7800 | San Francisco 415.512.3000 | info@lcwlegal.com
© 2012 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore